Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Friday Line: Battleground States

The Fix is jetting off to exotic climes but we couldn't leave without penning our latest and greatest rankings of the 10 states most likely switch sides (from Democratic to Republican or vice versa) in the November presidential election.

9. Pennsylvania (John Kerry won with 51 percent in 2004): Democrats are feeling more and more optimistic about their chances of keeping the Keystone State on their side in the fall. Vice presidential picks could make a real difference here. If John McCain opts for former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, the state could well move up the Line; if Barack Obama goes with Scranton (Pa.) native Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) as his second-in-command, Democrats will strengthen their hand. (Previous ranking: 8)

8. Virginia (Bush, 54 percent): The seriousness with which Gov. Tim Kaine (D) moves this state up a slot on the Line. Kaine isn't as popular in the Commonwealth as former governor Mark Warner (D) but a native son on the ticket would almost certainly help Obama. (Previous ranking: 9)

4. New Hampshire (Kerry, 50 percent): If you believe former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) is the frontrunner as McCain's veep pick (and we do), then the Granite State represents Republicans' best chance of switching a Democratic state from 2004. McCain has lasting appeal in New Hampshire and, unlike in many other states, will run even (or better) against Obama among political independents. (Previous ranking: 7)

3. New Mexico (Bush, 50 percent): McCain's next door neighbor appeal should help in New Mexico -- a state where demographic trends are moving in Democrats' direction. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Nevada (Bush, 50 percent) Previous ranking: 3

1. Iowa (Bush, 50 percent): Republicans concede this state is close to a sure-thing for Obama. The Hawkeye State has been at the center of the last two general election fights (in 2000 and 2004) but looks to be far less competitive this time around. (Previous ranking: 1)

Connie from Indiana wrote:
"I am proud of the Obama's a least they attend church and tithe. Of course the McSenile don't attend , but are endorsed by John Hagee and Rod Parsley.Don't come to my church you may not always agree with my pastor either, my pastor is WHITE. OBAMA 08"

Connie, I hate to tell you that just because someone attends a church a racist and hateful church and tithes does not mean the person has good judgment or morals. For instance, if someone attended the Satanic church and tithed, would that make them a good and moral person? What about if there was a KKK Church (maybe there is, I don't know) and someone attended that church and tithed? Sorry, your weak defense of Obama's lacking good judgment in attending Pastor Wright's church for the 20+ years doesn't wash. Sinners will go to hell, but I think despises even more those whom pretend to be Christians by attending a church and paying tithes while their other actions speaks volumes against God and Christian teachings.

The major issue of the week has been the McCain people stating clearly that Obama has been playing the RACE CARD during this year's Campaigns - from the South Carolina primary onward to this summer when Obama keeps on attempting to charge that the Republicans are "going to make people afraid of him."

NOT that the Republicans have said or done anything racist yet, HOWEVER OBAMA KEEPS ON SAYING THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO BE RACISTS SOON.

Obama's campaign theme now is: YOU ARE A RACIST UNTIL YOU VOTE FOR OBAMA.

In response we post these Video Clips from all the major news FOX MSNBC CNN netwoks:

This short Video clip includes THE LATE TIM RUSSERT OF NBC NEWS directly calling out Obama on Obama's Playing of the RACE CARD DURING OBAMA'S CAMPAIGNING IN SOUTH CAROLINA THIS YEAR in the Primary Campaign - in a Divisive and Extremely Shameful and Negative Manner.

By Juliet Eilperin and Jonathan Weisman
Raising a politically-explosive issue for the first time this election, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this morning of invoking the specter of race in order to bolster his electoral prospects.

The charge came in reaction to comments the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had made at three separate stops in Missouri Wednesday, where Obama suggested Republicans were trying to scare voters away from him.

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis countered this morning with a terse but harsh statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

The pundits are wrong if they think Mccain has an edge on energy. I'll take the $1,000 Obama is offering. Why don't you do a poll. Which one would you prefer a $1,000. Obama is offering to help with gas prices from the profits of oil companies or wait 7-10 years for Mccain to produce oil?

The pundits are wrong if they think Mccain has an edge on energy. I'll take the $1,000 Obama is offering. Why don't you do a poll. Which one would you prefer a $1,000. Obama is offering to help with gas prices from the profits of oil companies or wait 7-10 years for Mccain to produce oil?

I don't know why the pundits are saying Mccain has an edge on the energy policy when it would take 7-10 years before a drop of oil is produced. Besides, If republicans were really concerned about helping ordinary Americans at the pump why didn't they take those available leases the oil companies had to drill on before they left for recess? I don't hear any answers to Why aren't the oil companies drilling on the offshore leases they have? If Republicans are so concerned with the American people why their not supporting Obama's idea to give Americans a $1,000 dollars to help with gas prices from the oil companies profits? Republicans are always protecting the oil companies. The Republicans don't want the oil companies taxed, they make excuses for their record breaking profits as less than what it actually is because they reinvest. Why are Republicans so concerned? Do Republicans really want to help average Americans with high gas prices or are they in the tank with big oil companies and their lobbyist? I'll rather take the $1,000. dollars Obama is offering than waiting 7-10 years for Mccain to produce a drop of oil, if we should be so lucky. The $1,000 dollars is definately something that can help now.

I don't know why the pundits are saying Mccain has an edge on the energy policy when it would take 7-10 years before a drop of oil is produced. Besides, If republicans were really concerned about helping ordinary Americans at the pump why didn't they take those available leases the oil companies had to drill on before they left for recess? I don't hear any answers to Why aren't the oil companies drilling on the offshore leases they have? If Republicans are so concerned with the American people why their not supporting Obama's idea to give Americans a $1,000 dollars to help with gas prices from the oil companies profits? Republicans are always protecting the oil companies. The Republicans don't want the oil companies taxed, they make excuses for their record breaking profits as less than what it actually is because they reinvest. Why are Republicans so concerned? Do Republicans really want to help average Americans with high gas prices or are they in the tank with big oil companies and their lobbyist? I'll rather take the $1,000. dollars Obama is offering than waiting 7-10 years for Mccain to produce a drop of oil, if we should be so lucky. The $1,000 dollars is definately something that can help now.

The pundits are making this presidential more of a race than it actually is. The 2008 prersidential election will look more like the 1984 race than most people think. If one was to focus on the Pennsylvania and Florida primaries, you would conclude that John McCain will win those two states easily. The Clintons were right, Obama cannot win key big states. Senator Obama sat on a large bank of money during the primaries, out spent Clinton, and still didn't win the states necessary for him to win in November. Obama will not carry Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado. He is dumping tons of money into Indiana, a state he lost and will not carry in the fall. He has even opened a campaign office in Lafayette, Indiana. Right now he has more money than he knows what to do with, which will end up being the same as not having enough in the end. There will be more money in this election than air time to run radio and t.v ads. The election will be a case study on the over saturation of campaign money. No matter how this race is sliced McCain wins big!

Don't count Montana out as a switch state. Montana is a purple state, not a red one as most pundits believe. No Democrat has seriously asked for our vote since the latter half of the 20th Century.

But Obama is in a big way with 10 offices in the state and regular television ads. Obama has even taken positions on issues specific to this state. McCain has ignored us. Didn't even come to the GOP convention. The best his supporters can trot out is that their party appeals most to the "values" of Montanans.

But, with both US senators being Democrats, along with the Governor and all but one state office elected state-wide and a split legislature, I think the Republicans are just whistling past the graveyard. After the three special election wins by Democrats in supposedly safe Republican districts, I think there are going to be more than a few Democratic wins that no one in pundit land saw coming.

For some inexplicable reason, the "comments" section of today's WaPo lead story (the anthrax "suicide") will not accept this...

THE FBI MAY BE JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. ASK WOODWARD.

Don't assume the FBI has not followed a trail that was laid out for them. Rogue elements will eat their own.

Put Woodward on this, along with the probe of govt.-funded "vigilante injustice" squads that are targeting Americans outside the bounds of the law. There could be a nexus here, analogous to Watergate.

The fact that word has leaked out about some elements wanting to end the anthrax investigation provides a clue. Perhaps some in the FBI want to continue the probe.

Victims of govt.-supported vigilante squads charge that the new generation of bulletless, radiation-emitting "directed energy weapons" is being used against them. So it is not so far-fetched to believe that the Ivins case is an example of "eating one's own."

Indeed -- was Ivins' mental condition brought on by external forces? Was that "therapist" part of a set-up? If he was really homicidal, she would have been duty-bound to have him put away. This one does not pass the smell test.

Again, don't be so quick to put the onus on the FBI -- and reactivate the Watergate unit posthaste.

By Juliet Eilperin and Jonathan Weisman
Raising a politically-explosive issue for the first time this election, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this morning of invoking the specter of race in order to bolster his electoral prospects.

The charge came in reaction to comments the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had made at three separate stops in Missouri Wednesday, where Obama suggested Republicans were trying to scare voters away from him.

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis countered this morning with a terse but harsh statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

By Juliet Eilperin and Jonathan Weisman
Raising a politically-explosive issue for the first time this election, Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this morning of invoking the specter of race in order to bolster his electoral prospects.

The charge came in reaction to comments the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had made at three separate stops in Missouri Wednesday, where Obama suggested Republicans were trying to scare voters away from him.

"So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he told voters in Springfield. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky. That's essentially the argument they're making."

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis countered this morning with a terse but harsh statement: "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."

"Despite intense U.S. pressure, Iraqi leaders failed Sunday to resolve differences over how to govern the oil-rich city of Kirkuk _ a dispute that is blocking provincial elections and stoking tension in the volatile north."

So, Sen. McCain, Barack Obama is right and you are wrong. The political gains the surge was supposed to create are largely unfulfilled. Is Obama ready to lead? You bet. We don't need a president who, like John McCain, would hide under Paris Hilton's skirt, rather than confront the truth.

Agreed that Iowa is most likely to flip but I see New Mexico, Colorado, and Virginia all more likely to flip than Nevada - which should flip too; as will Florida.

No Kerry state flips for McCain.

As "close" as the media seems to be reporting this story, the electoral breakout has Obama firmly in the lead. This has been McCain's most aggressive week yet and while there may be a slight movement in the polls for him as a result, this sort of negativity doesn't work in July/August because people have a chance to get over the initial shock and see the McCain campaign's true colors of anger, impulsiveness and inconsistency.

Yikes! So now the WAPO Resident Obama Shill
Dippy Chris Clillizza or how ever village
idiot Chris Drippy Fizzle Drizzle spells
it,has discovered he can even read the voters mind and knows how they will vote on
Election Day no less. Why hasn't WAPO fired
this clown by now? NO DAMN OBAMA 2008!

Colorado should be near the very top of the list. Aside from the states trending Dem in recent cycles Obama will benefit from the convention being held in Denver. Also, there is a part of the Republican base in CO for whom immigration is by far and away the biggest issue. These people are not John McCain fans and some (admittedly not all) are willing to sit this one out.

Looking over this list it strikes me that Mitt Romney might be the best pick for McCain. He would give him a shot in MI, help in NH, and bump NV and NM down a few places as possible Dem pick ups.

â€¢ Due process denied, the Constitution discarded by "extra-legal control mechanism" said to resemble the KKK, the Stasi and the Nazi Gestapo

â€¢ A ROOT CAUSE OF THE MORTGAGE AND CREDIT MARKET MELTDOWNS?

â€¢ When will McConnell, Chertoff, Mukasey, Mueller, Gates and Paulson take action?

â€¢ Where is Congress on protecting civil liberties?

A virulent form of "domestic terrorism" is destroying the rule of law in America.

Victims of so-called organized "gang stalking" or "community stalking" charge that the rule of law has broken down nationwide at the hands of state-supported vigilantes -- operating under the cover of citizen "volunteer" programs and various "service" corps.

Organized groups of private citizens, funded by elements of government at multiple levels, are the backbone of an "extra legal" control mechanism that its victims say is denying citizens their constitutional right of due process under the law. Victims of this extra-legal network maintain that these vigilantes are functioning outside the legal system as judge, jury and executioner -- meting out various forms of harassment and abuse. Victims call it "domestic terrorism" and they allege that their human rights are being violated.

Those who have been targeted by these organized groups say this vigilante militia is patrolling the streets, stalking and harassing, inflicting physical harm upon persons targeted by this extra-legal control mechanism. Some victims have moved to other cities and towns to escape the extra-legal persecution -- but they say the vigilantism reoccurs in their new locale.

"It appears to be a nationwide network that attracts right-wing extremists as well as law and order types and people connected to public safety such as firefighters, police auxiliaries, retired police and military officers and even their family members," says one victim, who says he has been "gang-stalked" for several years. "I doubt it could exist without some people in positions of power looking the other way."

Even some regular, uniformed police are reported to have been intimidated by this network of extra-legal control, using volunteer citizens as the "street muscle."

Victims say that in addition to being physically harassed, their property is being vandalized; their privacy is being invaded; their mail is intercepted, financial accounts and billing statements altered, family finances decimated; and their physical well-being has been compromised using hi-tech instruments such as "directed energy weapons" that emit silent bursts of radiation -- lasers, microwaves, x-rays, even sonic frequencies -- that can disable, main, induce illness or even kill.

"This is torture that's happening right here, in American cities and towns," says one alleged victim. "But it's like pre- World War II Germany; people refuse to believe that such abuses could happen in a civilized society. But it is happening. And I'm convinced that local and federal authorities not only have knowledge of this extra-legal targeting, but are providing funding and direction.

"I know the FBI knows about it, because I've been down there several times over the past two years to report it." He says he knows of no formal investigation, despite his offers to cooperate.

"I'm not saying they know of the worst abuses, such as using microwaves on targeted persons to degrade their health and make it impossible for them to earn a living. But they must know that these citizen patrols are doing a lot more than just cruising around the neighborhood. "

Citizens who have reported abuses say their complaints are typically ignored -- or that authorities insinuate that their claims are figments of their imagination, or are a manifestation of a mental illness such as paranoia.

"That appears to be part of the M-O," says one victim. "You haven't done anything wrong, so they can't charge you with a crime. So they attempt to make it look like you're crazy. That's how they marginalize people who don't fit in with their world view."

This victim believes the vigilante network is a convenient way for those in power to dispense with persons of whom they disapprove, or whose political or social views do not hew to what they regard as the established order.

Victims also believe that a network of federal, state and local government programs and agencies works in tandem with the citizen-based extra-legal control system to destroy their financial security. They allege that the crisis in the mortgage and credit markets may have been worsened by these programs, which they say are sapping the financial well-being of individuals and families without benefit of the right of due process.

Some victims wonder whether these extra-legal programs didn't create those financial crises in the first place. "We haven't had these kind of widespread financial woes for sixty years," a gang-stalking victim said. "You have to wonder if these rogue programs of personal destruction weren't a blueprint for an ideologically-motivated purge."

Some of the agencies looking into the mortgage and credit market problems may have had long-standing knowledge of these programs, according to victims, who are calling on Congress to investigate.

"The issue of state-supported vigilantism and extra-legal control represents an assault on our judicial system that makes Watergate look like the third-rate burglary that it started out to be," says one gang-stalking victim. "Since government agencies appear to be involved in funding these programs, it's up to Congress to investigate, to use its powers of oversight to ensure that democracy and the rule of law prevails -- and not the law of the jungle."

President Clinton often talked about "the politics of personal destruction." Hillary Clinton warned against the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a concern she reaffirmed, albeit in milder descriptive language, in her autobiography, "Living History."

The network of programs and policies that are allegedly circumventing the judicial system, violating constitutional rights and meting out vigilante justice, might collectively be termed the MECHANICS of personal destruction.

I wonder aloud whether Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't trying to warn the rest of us about an evil that even the power of the presidency could not keep in check.

The entire electoral process is being marginalized, relegated to little more than window dressing, as true power is stolen away by a neo-fascist element that has found a way to seize the reins of power and authority. It is analogous to what John Dean called "a cancer" -- not just on the presidency, but on the entire body politic.

Amazing as it sounds, this powerful apparatus appears to exist under the radar of most elected members of Congress. Those who should know, perhaps they believe such programs exist to target "terrorists," so-called enemies of the state. They naively refuse to believe that these programs, over time, appear to have morphed into a vast system of extra-legal vigilante control not unlike the East German Stasi, the KKK of the old South, the Gestapo of the Nazi Third Reich -- and that these programs effectively deny innocent American citizens their constitutional rights.

This appears to be nothing less than neo-fascism under the guise of "national security" and "keeping America safe." And liberals and progressives, who arguably are represented among the targets of these programs, naively insist that "it can't happen here." Only the Libertarians seem to perceive the threat.

Whoever is elected the next president will inherit these programs. That person, if he learns of such programs, is likely to be told of their necessity and propriety -- that such an extra-legal control mechanism, employing citizen vigilantes and extra-legal programs targeting financial resources, can co-exist with democracy.

In fact, this extra-legal control mechanism is destroying our democracy; much damage already has been done. Individuals and families are being slowly destroyed. Some call it a "silent holocaust" due to its clandestine nature and the use of silent, invisible directed energy technology.

Below are links to the articles I've written about this imminent danger to our constitutional democracy. I urge lawmakers and congressional committee staffers to do some research, and start asking some tough questions, starting with the Department of Homeland Security:

"Mr. Chertoff, are you aware that many Americans believe they have been the victims of so-called community or gang stalking, possibly perpetrated by persons equipped and trained by federally funded volunteer programs under your charge? Have you heard of such reports, and are you investigating to ensure that these programs and their resources are not being misused?"

That would be a good place to start. I believe it goes much deeper; but the curative process must begin before more Americans are seriously damaged by this descent from the rule of law to the nihilist rule of the jungle.

A FINAL NOTE: My communications and my blog page are subject to persistent disruption and tampering by unknown hackers. I would appreciate it if readers of "The Fix" would forward the links below to people you know at the ALCU.org, CCRjustice.org, or any other group that could help. I can't do this alone; and I have put myself at some risk already.

You can tell you are for McSenile anything he does is OK .I think you may have many of your facts wrong, but let's start with the Keating Five, or Mrs.McCain's beer company doing business with Cuba, when they have a trade embargo against them. OBAMA 08
Connie from Indiana

To: anon. 7:27 PM who was trying to make the rediculous and laughable anology to Hagee and Paisley endorsing McCain.
Two racist pastors endorsing a presidential candidate like McCain is no big deal, but a presidential candidate like Obama being a 20 year member and supporter of a RACIST WHITE AND AMERICA--HATING CHURCH IS!!! If an endorsement of McCain is such a bad thing, why isn't the liberal left not bothered by Barack Obama getting ENDORSED by white and America--hater Louis Farrakhan, America--hater and terrorist Bill Ayers, the racist Trinity church leaders white and America--haters Wright, Moss 3d, and Pfleger, the terrorist America--hating groups Hamas, Fattah, PLO, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and the white and America--hating New Black Panther Party?

I am proud of the Obama's a least they attend church and tithe. Of course the McSenile don't attend , but are endorsed by John Hagee and Rod Parsley.Don't come to my church you may not always agree with my pastor either, my pastor is WHITE. OBAMA 08
Connie from Indiana

To Dianne72, You might want to make sure there is such a tape.Maybe McSenile can have one put together by Oct.But of course there are the tapes with McSenile calling his wife the 'c' word, or the records that show he and Cindy were having an affair before his divorce from his first wife who was disabled.But Obama has taken the high road and choose not to use a lot of things against McSenile.In Nov. choose wisely. Obama 08
Connie from Indiana

It's funny that the Obamanites are claiming that he has answered all his critics questions. The one answer to the most basic question though, he's ignored. That basic question (there's more than one but they're all related) is why was he and Michelle members of a white--hating and America--hating church for more than 20 years? Why did he support this church's hatefull message and the racist America-hating sermons of his pastor Jeremiah Wright? Why did he and Michelle Obama give large sums of money to this church ($22,500 just last year in one lump sum) to honor and give awards to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? Why did he and Michelle Obama let this racist white and America--hating church, under the leadership of Wright, indoctrinate and let brainwash their two daughters into this black-version of the KKK with Wright's racist and America--hating sermons every Sunday? We're all waiting to hear Obama's answer and ditto for his supporters who would crucify McCain if he'd have been a 20 year member of a BLACK--HATING church.

"The bottom line is that Obama answered the man's questions. McInsane wouldn't have even acknowledged him. He would've had his goons drag the guy out and then made some off-hand joke about the incident, all the while avoiding making any type of response."

No, McCain has been willing to answer questions from dissenters. He does it in a respectful manner as well. I know we've all seen that youtube video of that librarian getting thrown out, but there are also instances of McCain talking with people who disagree with him.

But yeah, I'm tired of the idiots who say that politicians should just pander to everyone. Obama gave a good answer to a guy who asked a ridiculous question.

"What Obama told the young man who challenged him at that Florida townhall meeting is low. You don't like it vote for someone else or become a politician yourself. Did he offer that young man assitance in that area. It seems Obama is forgetting all black men do not have his advantages in life. McCain only now need jump on the fact that it is not as simple as shrugging of voters. McCain need only tell America how important it is not to be so arrogant. Obama made it clear he does not want to fight for that young mans vote, That brave young black man is just as important then any other Americans vote. McCain need only remind Obama this election is about all Americans not just the Obama supporters he does not have to convince. Obama is arrogant.

Posted by: Obama is a arrogant jerk. | August 1, 2008 9:20 PM"

What an interesting interpretation of what happened. When I watched it, I saw Sen. Obama answer the young man's questions and then tell him that instead of whining, complaining, and grand standing even after the question was answered, maybe he should actually get up and take action by running for office or even (gasp) getting active within his own community to address the issues that he felt were not being addressed (hmm, sounds a lot like what Obama did in Chicago as a Community Organizer).

The bottom line is that Obama answered the man's questions. McInsane wouldn't have even acknowledged him. He would've had his goons drag the guy out and then made some off-hand joke about the incident, all the while avoiding making any type of response.

I think Obama handled that situation well. What more would you expect him to do? Devote the entire Q&A session to a one-on-one with this guy?

Sorry, you lose on this one.

Oh, and maybe you could tell me exactly what advantage Obama had in his life that has enabled him to be so successful without any determination and effort on his part? Was it being raised in a single-parent household? Was it being the brown-skinned child of a single white woman living in Hawaii and Indonesia back in the 60s and 70s (can you say "cultural isolation")? Was it struggling to make ends meet throughout his childhood? Was it getting into two Ivy League schools without the benefit of being a legacy? Maybe it was having the luxury of financing his own education at Columbia and Harvard Law School? Was it taking a job that paid $12,000 per year before AND after attending Harvard law school?

"I think John McCain will benefit from Michelle Shaniqua Obama's "whitey" tape due for release in October. Undoubtedly is will show her ranting from the pulpit of Trinity Church punctuating each rant with a fist bump.

Posted by: Dianne72 | August 1, 2008 2:38 PM"

If that's the only way you think McInsane can win, that doesn't say much about your candidate, now does it?

Or you mean like the way we subsidize the oil industry that is reporting record profits with tax breaks, or like the way the American people bail out corporate America when they make stupid investment and business decisions (i.e. Bear Stearns), and so on, and so on....

That's the GOP mentality: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Barack Obama will not carry Pennsylvania, and the Obama-Hillary run-off was proof of that. Hillary wiped the floor with Obama because of the Democratic Party white working class vote backlash over Obama's white working class voters "clinging to their guns and religion" cheap-shot. Pennsylvanians saw the real snot-nose elite Obama who was caught saying something nasty about them when he thought nobody but his elite San Francisco liberal audience was listening. Obama will get the racist black vote; the votes of the far-left wingers in academia, and the liberal white usefull idiots, but not the rest of Pennsylvanians. They're way too smart to be taken in by this racist con-artist.

"Disagree on NH. I don't think Mitt is all that popular in NH. NH voters have had plenty of exposure to Romney when he was governor, and I don't think they liked what they saw too much. My general theory about Romney is that anyone who's been exposed to him for more than 3 weeks can't stand him. He certainly would not have won re-election in MA had he been foolish enough to run."

That is true, I live in the northeast and Romney is not well liked at all out here. He is liked in Michigan though and I think thats the state McCain is really counting on.

Obama took the trouble to respond to the hecklers, gave them answers that satisfied them, and did so courteously and honestly. Commentators like Gia and the other lowclass, low information rabble who infest these threads could learn a lot from Senator Obama. But after all, who would expect class or integrity from a Republican?

WP Trails Section is currently not working at 5:44 a.m. Here's my out-going email being intercepted this morning:

>From 12:30 a.m., to until now (just finished), I saw these following vehicles more than 3 times spying on my house. Since it is dark, I can't tell you the plate numbers, yet here's specific information: This chicken-raid started with a black sports car (seems like Nissan), a green Subaru (three Hispanic guys), silver Infinite (two Asians), blue Audi and green Bronco (pair), white cab (617-825-4000 driven by a black driver), driving around my house over and over again. Blue Weagon that has white letters (...Shallon Community) has been stationedaround this area for a while and left the scene last.
---
People who are doing this should stop.
Do you want me to continue?

What Obama told the young man who challenged him at that Florida townhall meeting is low. You don't like it vote for someone else or become a politician yourself. Did he offer that young man assitance in that area. It seems Obama is forgetting all black men do not have his advantages in life. McCain only now need jump on the fact that it is not as simple as shrugging of voters. McCain need only tell America how important it is not to be so arrogant. Obama made it clear he does not want to fight for that young mans vote, That brave young black man is just as important then any other Americans vote. McCain need only remind Obama this election is about all Americans not just the Obama supporters he does not have to convince. Obama is arrogant.

Posted by: Obama is a arrogant jerk. | August 1, 2008 9:20 PM

He has got the black vote so whats one less! Is that it this poster is 100% right. Obama is a arrogant jerk! I'm sure this kid has got the same opportunity to become a Senator like Obama...

Chris of the Fix, your analysis is slightly flawed. You are basing your analysis on polls where either the choice was McCain or Obama and the rest where undecided.

As it stands, there will be four presidential candidates on the ballet, Obama, McCain, Nader and Barr. For some reason, these polling firms failed to make that recognition. Barr's impact on the presidential race will be felt the most in the South and among the conservative elements of the Republican party in which he will erode support from McCain.

Ralph Nader will not have much of an impact on Obama's support because many Democrats and some Independents remember Nader as the spoiler in Gore's presidential race. Secondly, Nader is an Arab American (born of Lebonanese parents) who speaks Arabic. Once this type of information gets out and public about Nader the little support he enjoys will evaporate in a post 9/11 world. Sorry but true.

Much of these battle ground states could go Republican. Why? There are progress in Iraq; gas price continue to fall; John McCain has the correct energy solution; lastly, because energy and energy dependence are at the hart of our current economic woes and John McCain has the correct energy solution, John McCain has the better economic solution.

These are the major reasons John McCain polls are currently going up BTW, it's not because of any thing else.

McCain... please do an ad where you mention Obama does not realize every black male may not have the same advantages Obama had. Or that just because he has the black vote it is no reason to write off voter who disagree with him. As an American hero you would fight for that same young mans vote not write him off! It needs to be said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is interesting how quickly the core messages of the two campaigns seem to have crystalized. It may already be irrelevant who either VP is.

Listening to John McCain speak, I heard him say that his opponent gives a great speech but has no experience to prove that he can do what he says. I propose that everyone do exactly as John McCain has urged all Americans to do to . . ."Listen to Barack Obama speak."

That is a very fair suggestion. Then listen to John McCain. If and when he DOES tell you what he wants to DO as President, you can decide. Do you want to take a chance on someone who has great ideas but a slim resume or take a chance on someone who has experience but no actual new ideas? By the way, I'm not sure that longevity in Federal Government is such a great advertisement for a candidate--the longest-serving Repub. in the Senate hasn't impressed much with his wisdom--or his integrity.

There has been a lot of persiflage flying about of late masquerading as thought. A lot of "pox on both houses" kind of thing and while I realize that there are some who don't need to listen to be able to "know" what they think, I am actually pretty confident that if Americans do what McCain suggests and listen, most will discover that, contrary to all the invective they may have heard, the Senator from Illinois is actually making a lot of sense. So, I urge everyone to take Senator McCain's advice.

What Obama told the young man who challenged him at that Florida townhall meeting is low. You don't like it vote for someone else or become a politician yourself. Did he offer that young man assitance in that area. It seems Obama is forgetting all black men do not have his advantages in life. McCain only now need jump on the fact that it is not as simple as shrugging of voters. McCain need only tell America how important it is not to be so arrogant. Obama made it clear he does not want to fight for that young mans vote, That brave young black man is just as important then any other Americans vote. McCain need only remind Obama this election is about all Americans not just the Obama supporters he does not have to convince. Obama is arrogant.

Posted by: Obama is a arrogant jerk. | August 1, 2008 9:20 PM

He has got the black vote so whats one less! Is that it this poster is 100% right. Obama is a arrogant jerk! I'm sure this kid has got the same opportunity to become a Senator like Obama...

Will Obama took the time to answer the young heckler and he did it well. at least they were not thrown out, were not told like McSenile I will get back to you or have them arrested as was the librarian who held the sign at McSenile rally.To all of you bloggers if you like the way Geo. Bush has ran the country then vote for McSenile, if you want change then you vote Obama, thats about what he told him, that is called democracy.
Connie from Indiana

What Obama told the young man who challenged him at that Florida townhall meeting is low. You don't like it vote for someone else or become a politician yourself. Did he offer that young man assitance in that area. It seems Obama is forgetting all black men do not have his advantages in life. McCain only now need jump on the fact that it is not as simple as shrugging of voters. McCain need only tell America how important it is not to be so arrogant. Obama made it clear he does not want to fight for that young mans vote, That brave young black man is just as important then any other Americans vote. McCain need only remind Obama this election is about all Americans not just the Obama supporters he does not have to convince. Obama is arrogant.

Fairlington to make the analogy between Nicaragua and Iraq is to comlpletely misunderstand the difference between the Sunni and the Shia and what their differences are ...who is loyal to whom and for how long this has been going on... it also ignores the fact that we used the idea of the declared "fatwa against foreigners occupying Muslim lands" to aggregate muslims from across the region to get them to join the freedom fighters ... we gave them billions... and lots of guns... and when it was done they took that and continues the fatwa we encouraged for military tactical reasons.

They encouraged out of religious zealousy...

in their opinions "we" are the heart and engine that runs the foreigners occupying Muslim lands... and then we went into Iraq.

I agree Pakistan would have helped the insurgents in afghanistan...and I agree that the soviets would have moved in...

I am saying we shuld learn from that tactic...

and understand and level with the American people the consequences and the honesty behind the surge.

We made violence go down...but did we make it worse?

Most experts on the region say al qaeda did not want to be seen as causing a muslim rift...they would have lost support of their gateway...Pakistan. The crazy leader that was leading the fight in Iraq...was running on his won...

al qaeda could not afford to let their involvement overshadow the blame America needed to get for going in...and for offending their perceived fatwa against foreigners occupying Muslim lands.

we did not just add cayenne to the pot... we added 65000 pieces of arsenal and billions of dollars.

as we may have just added 200,000,000,000 to this one. (and that is just the surge)

we have no idea

I only want the Mccain campaign to be honest about it. He is not being.

What Obama told the young man who challenged him at that Florida townhall meeting is low. You don't like it vote for someone else or become a politician yourself. Did he offer that young man assitance in that area. It seems Obama is forgetting all black men do not have his advantages in life. McCain only now need jump on the fact that it is not as simple as shrugging of voters. McCain need only tell America how important it is not to be so arrogant. Obama made it clear he does not want to fight for that young mans vote, That brave young black man is just as important then any other Americans vote. McCain need only remind Obama this election is about all Americans not just the Obama supporters he does not have to convince. Obama is arrogant.

Anon @ 6:42 - Your history is accurate, but don't pat yourself on the back for 20/20 hindsight. Backing an insurgency against the Soviet Union's invasion happened long before the rise of an anti-American, militant Islam. After all, there's been no Latino 9/11, even though the U.S. directly supported an insurgency against Nicaragua.

What if scenarios are always tricky, but let's say that the U.S. stayed out. Pakistan still would have aided an insurgency. And even if the USSR-backed regime lasted longer, it would have collapsed with the fall of the USSR. Thus, we still might have had the scenario out of which the Taliban arose. And an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait followed by U.S. troops based in Saudi Arabia would still have happened. The ingredients for our current dilemma were all there. We just added some cayenne to the pot.

Thanks Ted Stevens for bringing the ethical debacle of a Senators home being his castle back to the fore. The analogy is so simple, it begs making: Stevens is to Allen as Obama is to Rezko. It is as crystal clear as the comparison between having the audacity to claim the mantle of "change" and supporting pork and carbon producing corn ethanol over 8 times more efficient sugar cane ethanol. Hey Barack, how is that cheap side yard, subsidized by Iraqi blood money funded by Saddam Hussein's money launderer, Nadhmi Auchi, working out for you? Just thank Tony ....oh, you probably already did. I will thank Ted.

Zouk - it's not exactly like you and I are identifying ourselves. Still, I wish the Post would stop unsigned posts as well as forgeries. Some sections have a log-in, I don't know why this can't be made consistent throughout. Something for the ombudsman. The other annoyance is the time reversed posting. It's hard to follow a thread.

check this out... taken from the reference source...the book "Taliban"

and I quote:

Alhough there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[16]

sound familiar? like the tactic we just used to accompany the surge.

please do your history. the lack of understanding that people have of this area and the consequences of George Bush and John Mccain's actions - good or bad

need to be with the education of what history has shown us when we use tactics like we just did.

I am afraid voters have not hurt enough and will believe what the right wing throws at them and we will be stuck with Geo.bush's clone John McSenile.After all they believed all there crap in the last two elections and we got the village idiot from Crawfords,TX.
Connie from Indiana

to the commenter that is trying to make the truth sound like some "left wing blog" garbage...

here is a quote that matches several from various news agencies but I encourage everyone to brush up on the history of the mujahadin in Afghanistan and the tactic we used to get THOSE insurgents to help us...billions on that attempt at getting insurgents to fight for us...

It's not lefty bologne ...it's history schmuck... not even "mysterious" history ...it's idiots that got us George Bush and it is idiots that accuse history of being left wing propaganda...

I think this was originally taken from the Boston Globe
"Reagan praised the mujahadeen as freedom fighters battling an evil empire, stating, "To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson--that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors." (March 21, 1983)

we just used the same tactics in Iraq that we did with the mujahadeen in afghanistan...

The "freedom fighters" that reagan called them... kind of like the " Sons of Iraq"

huh?

the mujahadeen became the taliban, alqaeda broke off from them and Osama Bin Laden.

I believe if President Obama picks Evan Bayh as VP , Indiana could go blue.Of course we do have a lot of racist and under informed people in our state.Did you see how Barack Obama handled the heckler in the crowd today, unlike McSenile telling his heckler's he will get back to them or has them arrested.
Connie from Indiana

actually the reason the surge worked and the lives we lost and the valiant effort the troops gave came to the quiet that we see is

we like we did in afghanistan with Reagan's "freedom fighters" --gave Muslim extremist insurgents money and guns and promises of government positions...so they would turn on another force for us and not against us.

well those freedom fighters that we used that tactic with last time ...perhaps you didn't know they changed their names...

to
the taliban

al qaeda
and Osama Bin Laden.

Lets keep this all in perspective their is a reason Mccain said the 50 to100 years thing...

he just used a tactic that came back in our faces in the form of two planes and two skyscrapers bringing the deaths of 1000's of Americans on our own land...and the loss of the country we asked those "freedom fighters" to protect... to the hands of those freedom fighters (taliban) to give a safe haven for the other group of freedom fighters (Osama Bin Laden and al qaeda)

Good thing we gave them money and guns huh?

of course we didn't know that we made it worse for another 10 to 20 years.

I am preparing a new cabinet post. the secretary of tire inflation. This will come under the EPA and Interior. but not to be outdone by the new outrageously expensive minister of the military shadow organization. and don't forget the department of slave reparations and the giant refund for women who didn't get to vote in the 1800s.

Only then will I part the receeding seas. I am the one I have been waiting for. don;t beleive me? read my books.

A One-Man Army
Abe Greenwald - 08.01.2008 - 3:12 PM
It's hard to imagine a more warped and callous statement about the Iraq War than this one made by Senator Charles Schumer, when asked whether he would support a troop surge in Afghanistan:

Yes. The bottom line is I think Obama's trip was brilliant. Not in the short term, but in the long term, because it's changed the whole debate. And the whole debate now is focused on Afghanistan more than on Iraq.

So: It's not the U.S. troops who gave everything so that Iraq has a chance at a stable, viable future. It's not the Iraqis who fought alongside coalition forces and drove al Qaeda, and Shi'ite militias out of their own country. It's not David Petraeus who stepped into a nightmare and turned it, against all odds, into a triumph. None of those parties' accomplishments allowed us to take some focus off Iraq and consider the Afghanistan with a renewed sense of purpose. It was the Democratic nominee's "brilliant" traveling media circus (only undertaken after being criticized by John McCain) in the Middle East that's shifted the focus of America's fight from Iraq to Afghanistan.

That's good to know. This way if things flare up there once more, Obama can just make "brilliant" return trip and switch the focus all over again

Why all this? Inexperience and hubris--the same overconfidence that makes him say we need a Pentagon-sized new civilian aid department, to inflate our tires to avoid drilling, and must stop merely talking about reparations and starting doing something about them. His handlers need to return to the teleprompter, since all these incidents have in common the impromptu moment.

When he gets off the prepared remarks, he veers off into left field real fast.

"Obama can turn to experience with people like Biden or Dodd but, outside their home states, the American public has never warmed up to either of them as their presidential bids show..."

That was for President...have you seen the groundswell for Biden...every other posting... is for Biden...every third posting is for Hillary and the rest is broken up.

This position is not about Biden being President... this position is about who would be most effective at his side and if the country were to be hit with the tragedy that for some reason a President could not serve any longer...

I can't remember a single person during the primaries in NH not saying how they loved their choice candidate but they thought Biden was the smartest at the debates.

The majority of people like Joe Biden...they may not love Joe Biden but they like him...or respect him (even if he comes across like a blowhard at times)

everyone knows he get sthe facts...

and if you look at the news over the past 3 months he has gotten more stuff passed than we have seen any individual senator or congressman do in aLONG time.

Including the fact that today McCain pretty much stole/copied the idea from his Crime Bill that he also introduced 2 days ago.

There is no ignoring (and a great press tool) that both sides of the aisle and the White House has been giving him props the last 2 weeks because everyone suddenly noticed that Joe Biden has gotten a lot done while the rest of congress is fighting with each other.

On top of the fact that his being "the gaffe guy" actually kind of works in his and Obama's favor.

It is about to get really nasty for the enxt 3 months as we have seen just this week...if he picks someone who is not an attack dog ...they are going to have to become an attack dog.

and whena pol that isn't naturally and hasn't been an attack dog has to become an attack dog...what happens? gaffeshappen.

Now if Biden gaffes...he'll be like McCain..."oy he gaffed" but we know his histroy he'll apologize people will rolel their eyes and we move on.

If Bayh or Sebelius or Kaine were to gaffe (and it is definitely not goign to be kaine anymore) but the other "pleasant newbies" to the rough and tumble national stage gaffe...what do you think is going to happen?

If Bayh "gaffes" and says some small thing incorrectly or screws-up... how long do you think that press cycle is going to last compared to "the old guy who gaffes" (like McCain) doing it?

This seems to me a very simple choice at this point...obama needs familiarity numero uno to coax the American people not only into the changes we need to make...but he needs somebody beside him that the country recognizes to walk him through that last door.

and a 90% chance at a salm dunk VP debate... that fend off McCain from picking Ridge...and keeps PA in the dem column

or a milktoast 90% chance they will win VP debate? who helps in Indiana.

Instead of prosecuting Ted Stevens, we should be celebrating him. My plan is to build a bridge to nowhere in every state. The construction will be overseen by the oil lobbyists who are doing such a great job supervising my campaign.

Overseas, we need to take whatever steps are necessary to secure Iraq for the oil lobby, even if it takes a hundred years. They need that oil, dammit. A billion dollars in profit doesn't buy what it used to, just a broken-down old coot like me.

My ads are telling you what you need to know. Obama is black, I am white. Okay, pink with little tumors, but you get the picture.

So what if I don't have any ideas that don't enrich lobbyists - I will make TMZ my press secretary. Rather than deal with Egyptian king Ahmadinejad, I will show commercials comparing him to Al Pacino. If a hurricane hits this country, I will show commercials featuring Godzilla. To combat AIDS, I will film Magic Johnson. When South Korea attacks East Korea, I will watch Team America.

Kaine a native son? Doesn't the WP give you internet access so that you can research this stuff BEFORE you publish???

Kaine's a carpetbagger from Minnesota and his governorship has been lacking, at best. As a Virginian, I'd love to see him on the Obama ticket. That way we could get rid of both of these inexperienced empty suits at the same time.

I think it is too early to call as the majority of AMericans havent made up their minds about the relative attractiveness of the policies proposed by Obama and McCain. THe economy sucks and McCain really has so little to offer on that subject whereas Obama can really go head on with voters main concerns. McCains mis-speakings will become all the more evident and the saying "the candidate doesnt speak for the campaign" will dog McCain and make people wonder who is in charge. the big comparison is going to be the young smart one vs the old, nearly senile other. If McCains idea of winning is to destroy Obama he might just find himself destroying himself

EgoNemo, I like your analytical approach, particularly the military analogies. I'll differ on a minor point: a McCain defeat would actually be good in the long run. Bush incompetence has already set the party back a generation. The party needs a colon cleansing; the loony types need to be jettisoned and the party needs to revert to its original Reagan/Goldwater appeal. The worse the defeat, the more likely the party will have the come to Jesus moment that it needs.

In a brilliant move, which media pundits are describing as audacious, Barack Obama has chosen himself to be his own running mate. "That's how I roll," Obama told reporters in a briefly held brief briefing during the intermission of a Bon Jovi concert, after which he dropped the microphone with a loud thump. As he left the stage, members of the press corps ripped off their shirts and threw them toward the stage, while their female colleagues threw their panties, all of them experiencing what can only be described as "minimally disguised orgasms."

The Rules of Socialist Acquisition
(a representative sample)
To each according to his ability to work the system.
Compassion without coercion is useless.
Never ask when you can use the government to take.
The vast majority of the rich in this galaxy are undertaxed.
All we want is what's yours.
Monopoly is evil unless the government runs it.
Class envy makes a good running mate.
If a government program fails, repeat.
Be clean, articulate, and non-threatening.
When in doubt, throw a friend under the bus.
Never allow others' self-interest to stand in the way of your common good.
A liberal without guilt is no liberal at all.
When someone says, "I'm not a racist," he's lying.
A dead vote is just as good as a live one.
A good vote is worth casting twice.
Actual progress is not guaranteed.
Small print is the best invention since snake oil.
Entitlements and handouts will always overcome freedom and opportunity.
Integrity is no substitute for campaign cash.
A friend in need is a potential donor and land deal partner.
Never confuse powerful financial backers with luck.
Make sure your campaign cash doesn't cost you more than it is really worth.
Beware of relatives giving speeches.
There's nothing more dangerous than an honest consultant.
The most beautiful thing about the environment is that you can turn it into an election issue.
Citing Global Warming yields more cash than pointing a gun.
Always trust a person wearing a suit better than your own.
Moral choice is a complex personal issue that is better defined by focus groups.
Morality has limits. Moral relativism has none.
Never make fun of a Democrat candidate's family. Insult something he cares about instead.
Be careful what you legislate. It may do exactly what Rush Limbaugh says it would.
Compromise means the absence of opposition to Democrats.
War is good for political activism.
People could afford housing and healthcare without the government - if it weren't for the government.
Talk is cheap. Heap it generously on the public.
There isn't a gaffe by a Democrat politician that the media won't overlook.
Never argue with a loaded Kennedy.
Labor camps are full of people who opposed someone's beautiful dream.
Entitlement is the easiest way to enslave a population.
Democracy has limits. Dictatorship has none.
Saying stupid things is often smart.
Never cross Michelle Obama.
Never let the electorate know what you're thinking.
Never admit anything that can't be later blamed on Republicans.
Only the Democrats could screw up New Orleans so badly and keep getting elected.
Knowledge is bliss, ignorance is power.
Give someone a fish, you feed him for one day. Teach him how to fish, and you lose a Democrat voter.
Pursue social justice; money and power will come later.
All voters are suckers.
Every once in a while offer a compromise; it confuses the hell out of Republicans.
There is no substitute for an unnecessary government program.
Never do something that the government can do for you.
Never spend your own money when you can spend the government's.
Money taken as profit is immoral; money taken by government is the highest form of Lightworking.
If it can get you elected, say it!
Only fools say what they believe.
Faith moves mountains of "Obama" memorabilia.
Poverty is no crime. Better yet, it's an excellent source of votes for the Democrat party.
Even in the worst of times, someone always gets elected.
Never snort cocaine and have sex in a limo with a homosexual drug user named Larry Sinclair.
Oil is a stolen product.
Practice saying it in front of the mirror: "This isn't the Almighty God that I know."
Law makes everyone equal, but presidential pardons go to the highest bidder.
There's nothing wrong with big business as long as they donate to anti-business causes.
Never buy votes if ACORN can fix it for nothing.
Friends and family are the rungs on the ladder of success - don't hesitate to step on them.
Blood is thicker than Kool-Aid.
Blame Bush first; ask questions later.

I think John McCain will benefit from Michelle Shaniqua Obama's "whitey" tape due for release in October. Undoubtedly is will show her ranting from the pulpit of Trinity Church punctuating each rant with a fist bump.

It has been affirmed that the Bush administration used illegal screening criteria when hiring justice department officials over the last 7 years. Not even Richard Nixon abused the justice system to this degree.

I love the overconfidence demonstrated by Obama and his supporters. Based on what - being tied in the polls in a totally Dem year? on nominating a jejuene with no experience or judgment.

It will be very unlikely that many states will switch columns. the impetus lies on the challenger and Obama is more liberal, meaning he has less chance to flip them. On the other hand Mc Cain is also more liberal so he stands a better chance of flipping any states.

Perhaps CO, NH and NM but that is it and it doesn't change the outcome. to think that Va will vote for an extreme liberal is fantasy. We only elect fake DINOs on occasion who run on centrist ideas. that is not Obama. the polls will stay relatively even until the wire, then the 5 point Dem bias and the uncertainty about barack will tend toward a 3-5 point shift toward McCain. the result is a solid landlside victory for McCain, but with an angry congress in place and no friends for him. the Pelosi Reid congress will sit on their hands for another 2 years before being booted out in humiliation.

Sen Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) plead not guilty to 7 federal charges yesterday that he's a long time ho for big oil and anyone who can scrape up a couple hundred bucks and needs a favor. Like the good Senator Larry Craig (R-I-da-ho), Senator Stevens denied any wrongdoing and has promised to stay in the Senate and run for reelection in order to keep the gravy train rolling.

Today's just released Gallup poll: Obama 44% and McCain 44%. So these key states and the VP picks will be important.

Obama can turn to experience with people like Biden or Dodd but, outside their home states, the American public has never warmed up to either of them as their presidential bids show. Obama won't share the presidency with Hillary and Bill. Richardson may have the strongest background but his campaign didn't indicate any overall popularity. Kaine may be the choice Obama is personally most comfortable with. Someone like Bayh would be a safe, if uninspiring choice. Obama and Bayh would definitely win the good looks votes. I think Edwards would be a great choice but having lost once as VP and in the primaries there is that losing stigma.

For McCain Tom Ridge could put Pennsylvania into play and his experience as governor, congressman, and head of the Department of Homeland Security are impressive. Romney has pockets of support but an underfinanced Huckabee trounced him in most primaries indicating his support is too selective. People like Jindal and Palin are a little too inexperienced, Four years from now their stars will be much bigger. Thune would be the equivalent of choosing Bayh. A handsome, safe choice who neither helps or hurts you. My dark horse for McCain would be Marc Racicot, the former governor of Montana. Very intelligent and studied on a wide variety of issues.

I love CC's (and the rest of the media's) attempts to show that McInsane has some areas of strength in this campaign. Based on all of the recent polling, to throw the states of NH, MI, and PA into the TOP 10 states that could change color this election cycle is just plain wrong. While it could be argued that McInsane has a chance in those states, they are hardly one of the TOP 10 states that could change colors.

Furthermore, to say that NH has a better chance of going red than states like ND, MT, NC, MO, IN, AND AZ (YES, AZ) have a chance of going blue is really amazing. CC, what polls are you looking at?

The bottom line is that McInsane is in trouble. He is trailing or barely leading in 14 states that the GOP carried in 2004. In any other world, this race would not be considered anywhere near close. But I guess if the MSM reported that, then people would have no reason to watch, now would they?

Iowa and New Mexico should be removed from the list. Not because they will go with McCain this year, but because they went with Gore in 2000 and they were so close in 2004. It would also make The Fix go deeper into the electoral muddle for two more states.

June 2008: Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) are reported to have received favorable mortgage terms from Countrywide Financial Corp. as part of a "Friends of Angelo" program, a VIP arrangement set up by CEO Angelo Mozilo. Both senators deny any wrongdoing and say that they didn't know they had received special breaks on their mortgages. The Senate Ethics Committee is currently investigating the matter.

The censure motion, which was "tabled" (or shelved) on a mostly party-line vote, 254-138, came barely a week after Rangel himself took the highly unusual step of asking the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to determine whether he violated any ethics rules in two separate cases -- one related to his use of four rent-controlled apartments and one related to his use of congressional stationery to arrange meetings with potential donors to an educational center that bears his name.

Of course I'm a paid disinformation troll. The government is terrified of you and the truths you bring. That's why they pay big money to people like me, who try to discredit your (obviously correct) theories.

Now that you're onto me, I've alerted my bosses in the highest levels of government. As we speak, they're retargeting the satellites at your house. Within hours, you'll be bombarded with several types of high-energy radiation, including both gamma waves and radiation. Goodbye, Vic Livington.

My friends, some people say the economy isn't doing so hot right now. I'm here to tell you the American economy is doing great. Why just last week my wife made over $600 grand when a Belgian company bought the largest brewer in America. Would that happen in a crappy economy? Yesterday Exxon/Mobil set a record for profits - making more money in a quarter than any company ever has. The only way to keep this economy humming along is to make tax cuts permanent, so Cindy doesn't have to pay any capital gains on her InBev windfall; that and keep borrowing money from the Chinese to keep the dollar weak so our friends at Exxon/Mobile can keep earning record profits.

Now, can I get any of my friends in the press corps another Stella Artois?

Strong? He's never even approached the high single digits. Its a campaign being done out of hubris and vanity. Thanks to "Citizen Ralph" we now have a number of young ultra right wing members of the Supreme Court, politically hires (in non-political positions) at the DOJ who are now "protected" and will be influencing policy for years, and numerous other disasters because of his last couple of acts of vanity.

Elizabeth further wrote:
NADER can win, by the merits numero uno, and by the voter registration at a majority in his favor, numero two.

My comment:
Nader can win? I don't think that even Nader believes that he has any chance at all of winning. He's a spoiler who will simply work toward the election of McCain.

Elizabeth wrote:
We have 22,00 collected signatures currently being reviwed to net the required 10,000 validated to net ballot in MA. Name as a INDEPENDENT CHALLENGE PRINTED on as many as 45 states is what we are looking at from Nader's view.

My comment:

Ooooooo. 22,000 collected signatures out of a population of 6.4 million. That's 0.34% of the population. That's not an indication of significant support. My guess is that one could circulate a petition for Bozo the Clown and get 22,000 signatures just from people that don't bother to look.

Elizabeth wrote:
From the nation, at least a PROPER FIGHT TO EARN A WIN!

My Comment:
Fortunately Nader is so marginalized and so unrepresentative of the population as a whole with views that are so extreme that he is likely not going to draw enough votes to prevent the election of Obama. But you would think that Nader supporters would be smart enough to realize (although I guess they are not smart enough to realize this) that Nader is the NUMBER ONE reason why we had 8 years of Bush and why we now have a young extreme right wing supreme court that is destroying our liberties willy-nilly.

Ranking the battleground states isn't the most productive excercise because the ranking change every week with the vascilating polls. However, most polls show the following 11 states as the closest (most likely to change):
NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, MI, IN, MO, CO, NM, NV. Most polls do not show PA or IA as being within 6%. Neither are true battleground states. Of the 11 states closest in the polls, only NH and MI was carried by Kerry in '04. That's bad news for McCain, who has to use time, energy, and $$$ to defend 9 states that Bush won, in a political environment much more hostile to the GOP brand, and then on top of that use those same resources to undermine Obama in NH and MI. While McCain will huff and puff about picking up states like PA and MN, his best hope is to defend the states that Bush won in '04. Even if Obama picks up Iowa, McCain still wins 279 to 259. Obama may be bluffing when he talks about states like Georgia and Montana. McCain may be bluffing when he talks about states like Pennsylvania and Minnesota. The only difference is that McCain must win at least the 7 (of 11) biggest toss-up states to get over 270, and it's unlikely that of those 11, Obama would somehow manage to win only the 4 with the smallest EVs (NM, NV, NH, and CO). In reality, McCain needs to win 8 or 9 of the closest 11 contests. The numbers speak for themselves. Obama can either win by a landslide or lose a squeeker, and that's a pretty good spot to be in 3 months out.

President Nader sounds best to me, and viability is strong here in MA, where there are 50% registered independents, and one percent minor parties, and only 36.6% democrats. Who will take the state? We will see. Ballot access is happening now in MA and all over the country.

NADER can win, by the merits numero uno, and by the voter registration at a majority in his favor, numero two.

We have 22,00 collected signatures currently being reviwed to net the required 10,000 validated to net ballot in MA. Name as a INDEPENDENT CHALLENGE PRINTED on as many as 45 states is what we are looking at from Nader's view.

John McCain is now hot on Barack Obama's rear bumper in the Buckeye State. And Ohio voters now regard the presidential candidates' stances on energy as more important than their positions on the war in Iraq. Those two developments in a new survey are more closely related than they might appear (Snip) McCain has reduced Obama's margin to 2 percentage points in Ohio -- 46 percent to 44 percent, within the survey's margin of sampling error...

Look at the polling numbers. Since May, McCain hasn't led or tied in any PA polls. The 3 polls in July have Obama ahead by 6, 7, and 9 points. McCain's not going to win PA. He's slightly closer in MI, but the situation is basically the same. NH is even less likely to go for McCain; Obama's led in every poll for months.

I know that this information won't make an impact on scrivener's diatribes about laser beams, Ludacris, and why Hillary is going to be the nominee. But I wanted to set the record straight for any non-insane people who might be reading this.

McCain's Arizona roots don't mean Sh1t in New Mexico. These are really big states who don't share much in terms of media markets. To drive from the center of New Mexico to the center of Arizona is a 7 hour drive! McCain has no more appeal in New Mexico than he does anywhere else.

There are polls suggesting that Obama has a shot at Montana, but I'm skeptical. Yes, we do have a significant number of Democrats in state office, but they tend to be moderate Republicans in disguise (our governor, for example, has a Republican running mate, and our senior U.S. senator, who will be coasting to re-election, is in bed with the big corporations). If McCain can present himself to Montanans as a moderate conservative rather than a right-wing kook, he'll probably win the state.

There are too many variables to say anything sensible this early, but campaigns have to make judgments now on where to spend money and time. Living in Ohio, I expect to hear and see more than I want about the general election. In a Democrat year Obama has to lose for McCain to win. Will Obama persuade people that he is acceptable? That is all that he has to do. I can envision anything from an Obama blow-out to a McCain squeaker. Without much confidence in my powers of prediction, I expect Obama to win with a few states to spare. I doubt that Obama's apparent decision to contest a large number of states will help him much, but it may help down ticket Democrats.

Obama has arisen from nothingness, from one accomplishment-free political gig to another, propped up by leftists adulators and sycophants, to offer a perfect portrait of socialism's eternal snare. Forget God; put your hope in mankind. Human arrogance and narcissistic pride. From the fall in the Garden to the present, from generation to generation, Satan's delusion holds sway with many.

Barack Obama is walking, talking, breathing narcissism. The iconography of his campaign is nothing, if not the glorification of Obama, a solitary, quite mortal man. They must glorify Obama's image because, in reality, he has no accomplishments that bear mention.

Obama struts his nothingness with grace; even his detractors admit that.

What could more openly and more amply demonstrate the absolute emptiness of socialism's promise than the perfectly empty resume of its newest hero?

What could possibly more adequately prove the personalized utopianism of his followers than that they believe in a man who has borne no fruitful action?

Barack Obama offers "collective salvation" in the form of socialist government interventions in every sphere of life, from starting-at-birth state education, to socialized, universal health care, to a tripling of the already failing AmeriCorps. This socialist answer to all that ails mankind isn't anything new. It's old, tried, and just as untrue now as in its beginning.

Beware the man who promises what man simply lacks the power to bestow.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."
-- H. L. Mencken

The seas will recede. The planet will heal. Everyone will love America again. The sick will all be cured by socialized medicine. The poor will cease to exist. The rich will give all their money to Africa. The government will become efficient. Sin won't happen. The yellow brick road will lead to the White House, not a fantasy land. And the Emperor's clothes will suddenly materialize so that the whole world will actually see something there.

5. VA -- Obama should win with or without Kaine. McCain's fading hopes here would have to do with strong turnout in Hampton Roads. (304 EVs)

6. NV -- Every four years, NV looks more and more like California. Welcome to CA's 1988, NV. (309 EVs)

7. MO -- Should be close, a race between urban MO and rural MO, with suburban KC and STL refereeing. (320 EVs)

8. NH -- The best-looking potential pickup for McCain at the moment. And he hasn't led there in a poll since April.

9. (tie) IN, FL, MT, NC -- No special insight, but the polling looks fairly decent so far. Better there for Obama at least than MI and PA look for McCain.
I mean, c'mon, CC, McCain has been flooding PA with ads and can't budge his numbers. McCain has as much chance there as Obama does in SC.

this race is turning into a referendum on Barack Obama and quite frankly, he has absolutely nothing going for him besides the fact that he's young, good looking, black, and does a great job of reading the speeches his handlers have prepared for him. Once you get beyond those paper-thin qualifications for office, Obama is nothing but a mass of flaws, bad character traits, and left-wing agitprop. While the press lauds Obama as if he just cured cancer and invented a car that runs on lawn clippings in the same day, everyone else can't help but notice...

The Snobbery: If little girls are made up of sugar, spice, and everything nice, then Obama is made up of arugula, personal presidential seals, and hubris. Never before has a candidate with so few accomplishments to his name looked so far down his nose at the American people.

The Phony Idealism: Silently, there must be a lot of liberal Democrats kicking themselves today because all during the primaries, the race was portrayed as a battle between Barack Obama, the idealist and Hillary Clinton, the pragmatic, say-anything-to-win candidate. Then, the moment Obama captured the nomination, all of those precious ideals flew out the window and Obama started shifting his positions farther and faster than Hillary Clinton ever did. So much for the candidate who was supposed to be a "new kind of politician."

His Liberalism: Although Obama has attempted to shift to the center since he captured the Democratic nomination, his record is one of radical liberalism. In fact, he was ranked as the single most liberal senator in 2007 by National Journal, actually supported a complete ban on handgun sales, and wants to hand out 845 billion dollars to foreign nations as part of an effort to "elimin(ate) extreme poverty." If you would be thrilled to have a President who is as liberal as Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann, then Barack Obama is your man.

His Changing Position On The War in Iraq: In one of the most ironic twists of the campaign, Obama beat Hillary Clinton by being so stridently anti-war in Iraq, but his latest ever-shifting position essentially mirrors that of John McCain. Although Obama is still promising a timeline, he is saying he could leave 50,000 troops in Iraq and that the withdrawal is "entirely conditions-based." Although the lefties are biting their tongues, you know they must be seething that they've been sold down the river on their biggest issue -- or maybe they just assume he's lying, which is entirely possible.

The Poor Judgment: This is a guy who stayed in a racist church and stuck by a bigoted reverend for 20 years, grotesquely leaked his Western Wall prayer to the press, and blew off a visit to see wounded troops while the whole world was watching him overseas. In other words, even when it comes to matters of mere politics, this is not a man who can be trusted to make wise decisions. So, how can we trust him to make good policy decisions for the country?

He's Gaffe Prone: When John McCain makes mistakes, the media tries to portray him as senile. But Obama makes dumber mistakes than George Bush, more mistakes than Dan Quayle, and that's despite the fact that he spends far less time talking to the press than McCain. So, what's his excuse for thinking that we have more than 57 states, claiming America's "fallen heroes" were in the audience listening to him, and his claim that "'10,000 people died' in the Kansas tornadoes when the death toll was really only 12?" Dan Quayle's notorious potato(e) error, which was used to forever portray him as a drooling moron, wouldn't even qualify as one of Obama's top five mistakes.

It amazes me that Barack Obama continues to score points for having opposed the war in Iraq. But, considering how much the left-wing media adores this guy -- and let us never forget that Obama has managed to send shivers up Chris Matthews' leg -- I suppose nothing should surprise me. I mean, Sen. Obama is a man who's been around for nearly 47 years and apparently every single person who is near and dear to him is a creep I would cross the street to avoid. Also, isn't it high time that people quit oohing and ahing about his oratorical skills? I'm willing to grant that so long as he is reading the work of his speech writers, he's okay. But ask him a question off the cuff and he turns into Mortimer Snerd. Still, I suppose if I were desperately trying to pass myself off as a centralist when I was really a left-wing radical, I'd get nervous, too.

Much has been made of Sen. Obama's reluctance to meet with General Petraeus and his refusal to travel to Iraq with or without Sen.McCain, but I, personally, don't blame him. After all, what could he possibly say afterwards when all the evidence suggests that, thanks to the surge, things are turning out just swell over there? It's one thing to pat oneself on the back for being the most prescient member of the Illinois legislature and quite another to admit to having been a nincompoop. I know I sure wouldn't want to go into a general election as the candidate who's still insisting on a deadline for troop withdrawal, thus ensuring that we and the Iraqi people would suffer the same sort of ignominious defeat that we and the South Vietnamese endured 35 years ago.

WHEN CC PAINTS PA AND OH RED, IT'S TIME FOR
A "RED ALERT" AMONG DEM SUPERDELEGATES

If you have PA going red, that's a dangerous omen for the Dems. So how goes PA go red, and not FL, given the high number of crackers and Jewish people, two groups that are not enamored with Obama?

Certainly FL would go red before PA. Yet you have FL going blue. Even prior to the "Obama Dollar" debacle, FL was canting right.

Obama's vacillations and his clumsy injection of his skin color into the campaign does not bode well for VA. Tim Kaine is not all that popular in VA, he's a newbie, and would alienate Obama's base. So how VA is going blue at this stage? Don't see it.

CO, maybe. But Ohio? With Portman the puppeteer with his Bushie hand up McCain's back, I can't see Ohio going blue.

With a red MI joining your red PA, in a year in which both should be solid blue, things look even more bleak for the Dems.

BOTTOM LINE: When Chris Cillizza has MI and PA going red, along with independent-minded NH, it's a red alert for the Dems.

This has got to have the super-delegates thinking twice.

This thing is not over. The "Obama Dollah" gaffe is going to continue to plague Barack long after the Brittney-Paris Celeb-O-Bama is forgotten.

If Obama goes with a well-known lion of the liberals like Dodd, and if he can get the media to focus on the issues and not on a referendum on Barack, he could eke out a victory.

But if Obama continues on his current path, and picks a centrist unknown like Kaine (or even Bayh) as his veep, he looks like a loser.

The election is looking like it's going to be about Obama's qualifications and his hubris, not about the issues. If that turns out to be the case, Obama looks like a loser.

The Dems really should be thinking about Hillary. She could then pick Obama has her veepee to unite the party. That's the way this thing should have come down earlier; that's the only way the Dems have a decent shot of winning.

Only if this election becomes a referendum on GOP economic policies and an adventurous foreign policy -- and not a referendum on Barack Obama's experience, qualifications and personality -- will Obama emerge as the next POTUS.

This should have been a cakewalk. Will the Dems continue to walk the plank?

Final sour note:

Ludacris' rap exhortation to "paint the White House black" is not helpful. That's a "chanson noir" certain to get heavy airplay on right-wing talk radio.

WILL THE ELECTION EVEN COUNT? NOT WITH
"VIGILANTE INJUSTICE SQUADS" SUBVERTING
THE RULE OF LAW ALL ACROSS AMERICA

Chris. . .Buenos Aires is a great spot for wonderful dining. . .try Cabana Las Lilas in Puerto Madero for amazing steaks, Cafe Violeta across from the Castro Barros metro station for an old world dessert and espresso experience (less touristy than Cafe Tortoni, though that is wonderful in its own right) El Desnivel in San Telmo for down and dirty Argentine food, Provoleta, Chorizo, jug wine. . .BTW, be sure to stroll around San Telmo on a Sunday afternoon.

WHEN CC PAINTS PA AND OH RED, IT'S TIME FOR
A "RED ALERT" AMONG DEM SUPERDELEGATES

If you have PA going red, that's a dangerous omen for the Dems. So how goes PA go red, and not FL, given the high number of crackers and Jewish people, two groups that are not enamoured with Obama?

Certainly FL would go red before PA. Yet you have FL going blue. Even prior to the "Obama Dollar" debacle, FL was canting right.

Obama's vacillations and his clumsy injection of his skin color into the campaign does not bode well for VA. Tim Kaine is not all that popular in VA, he's a newbie, and would alienate Obama's base. So how VA is going blue at this stage? Don't see it.

CO, maybe. But Ohio? With Portman the puppeteer with his Bushie hand up McCain's back, I can't see Ohio going blue.

With a red MI joining your red PA, in a year in which both should be solid blue, things look even more bleak for the Dems.

BOTTOM LINE: When Chris Cillizza has MI and PA going red, along with independent-minded NH, it's a red alert for the Dems.

This has got to have the super-delegates thinking twice.

This thing is not over. The "Obama Dollah" gaffe is going to continue to plague Barack long after the Brittney-Paris Celeb-O-Bama is forgotten.

If Obama goes with a well-known lion of the liberals like Dodd, and if he can get the media to focus on the issues and not on a referendum on Barack, he could eke out a victory.

But if Obama continues on his current path, and picks a centrist unknown like Kaine (or even Kayh) as his veep, he looks like a loser.

The election is looking like it's going to be about Obama's qualifications and his hubris, not about the issues. If that turns out to be the case, Obama looks like a loser.

The Dems really should be thinking about Hillary. She could then pick Obama has her veepee to unite the party. That's the way this thing should have come down earlier; that's the only way the Dems have a decent shot of winning.

Only if this election becomes a referendum on GOP economic policies and an adventurous foreign policy -- and not a referendum on Barack Obama's experience, qualifications and personality -- will Obama emerge as the next POTUS.

This should have been a cakewalk. Will the Dems continue to walk the plank?

Final sour note:

Ludacris' rap exhortation to "paint the White House black" is not helpful. That's a "chanson noir" certain to get heavy airplay on right-wing talk radio.

WILL THE ELECTION EVEN COUNT? NOT WITH
"VIGILANTE INJUSTICE SQUADS" SUBVERTING
THE RULE OF LAW ALL ACROSS AMERICA

I'm glad to see the Fix getting realistic re. the State of Pennsylvania. I live in Pa. and travel the entire state driving a rig and outside of the Philadelphia and suburbs area, as well as the areas around the various coleges and universities, there is no support for Barack Obama. Hillary probably could have carried this state but Obama, never. Since Pa. and Ohio are generally a lot alike in their voting pattern, I suspect that both will go to the GOP in the general.

In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color.

In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives - overwhelming Black voters.

In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.

In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure.

My investigations partner spoke directly to Barack Obama about it. (When your partner is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., candidates take your phone call.) The cool, cool Senator Obama told Kennedy he was "concerned" about the integrity of the vote in the Southwest in particular.

He's concerned. I'm sweating.

It's time SOMEBODY raised the alarm about these missing voters; not to save Obama's candidacy - journalists should stay the heck away from partisan endorsements - but raise the alarm to save our sick democracy.

I say all the people on here that are fighting you on your listisn't looking at the next 3 months which are going to ge tnasty.

It gets nasty...Obama is going to take a hit...especially if he doesn't have a natural attack dog standing next to him.

This is an election where the VP choices are going to matter significantly.

Mccain has the harder situation but he is going to pick second...he has to fend off whomever Obama picks.

But like i said if McCain has cover from Obama's pick top be able to pick who he wants...Ridge. 2 vets on the ticket...with serious experience in a multitude of facets...

Then yes, PA, Ohio, NH, VA, CO, and even Michigan take one big step to the right.

It is the right leaning evangelical states that he would have to worry about then...but I seriously doubt that evangelicals would pick Obama...sorry they may stay home but they won't pick obama.

and if McCain picks a VP that is more liberal on women's issues ...and McCain has some pretty liberal issues (although this campaign has shown him trying to look conservative on those same issues) on environment, gay rights, campaign finance, stem cell research...

>>"Nader is up to 6% and growing and most of the people he is appealing to are Democrats who think Obama is too far in the center."

What are you looking at?

CNN poll on July 29 had Nader at 6 percent, but that was obviously an outlier, given the poll's margin of error and that the POLL AVERAGE for NADER in late July was a stunning 2 PERCENT.
Nader's trend isn't up -- isn't "growing -- it's DECLINING:

I've been keeping track of all polls posted on realclearpolitics.com since March. Based on a weighted average of these polls (the more recent, the higher the weight), here are the two candidates' best pick-up chances:

Just a reminder that the starting point for these pick-up opportunities is the 2004 election, which means McCain starts with a 286-252 lead. Also, all the usual disclaimers apply about the election being 3 months off and the various inaccuracies involved in polling (e.g. sample size, determining "likely" voters, possible "Bradley effect", bias towards voters with landlines, etc.)

I've been keeping track of all polls posted on realclearpolitics.com since March. Based on a weighted average of these polls (the more recent, the higher the weight), here are the two candidates' best pick-up chances:

Just a reminder that the starting point for these pick-up opportunities is the 2004 election, which means McCain starts with a 286-252 lead. Also, all the usual disclaimers apply about the election being 3 months off and the various inaccuracies involved in polling (e.g. sample size, determining "likely" voters, possible "Bradley effect", bias towards voters with landlines, etc.)

First off- Pennsylvania should not be within 10,000 miles of this list. Obama's average lead in PA has been eight points for months, with no sign of movement. To put another way: Obama's lead in PA is statistically identical to his lead in IA, yet you think IA is safe for Obama but PA could switch to McCain. ERROR! Does not compute.

Second- The McCain spin might be he's doing well in MI. But there's been extensive polling there this month that shows Obama's lead holding steady. Certainly it's competitive, but it's insane to imply it's more likely to flip than Virginia, where the polls are a dead heat with Obama slightly ahead.

Third- have you seen Obama's movement in Florida? Have you? He's polling AHEAD there now, Chris. AHEAD. That was considered a safe McCain state a month ago-now, if the senator doesn't get his act together, he's in serious trouble.

Lists are fun, but rather thin analysis. You could dash this off in 20 minutes and bill the rest of the 7 hours and 40 minutes of the day to your client.

Meanwhile, the list does show one broad theme -- McCain has to fight on more battlefields than Obama. And as a military man he should know what this means -- the threat of defeat -- defeat so ignominious it will set back the Republican cause for a generation.

That a Democratic candidate should be seriously considered a contender in any part of the Mountain West should give McCain pause. That Obama is contending in THREE western states (perhaps Ariz. will hit the next list) shows that McCain's path to the White House likely extends a bridge too far.

McCain has neither the money, nor the capacity for strategic thought, necessary to fight Obama in OH, MI, PA -- AND NM, CO, NV, IA, VA and whatever new swing states crop up.

While presidential preferences have changed over the course of a leap-year summer (paging President Dukakis ...) NO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE has ever faced such an electoral deficit at this point in the race. By the most conservative calculations, Obama has a SAFE 230 electoral votes. It takes 270 to win.

PA and MI should be off of the list -- remember, the list is of the ten most likely changes from 2004. They should be replaced with MT and AK.

In order to keep the appearance of competitiveness in the election, you have to name at least one state that could conceivably go from D to R, so leave NH on the list, although Obama would have to fornicate in public with a a goat in order to lose it.

and lenstewart is right MItt is not all that popular in NH we get the bleed fromBoston press...and Mitt is blamed for a lot of problems that the national media doesn't report on in Massachusetts...(although I have to say a lot repubs try to blame Patrick for issues that are all Romney)

I think Virginia has a higher chance of turning blue also... it really depends on whether McCain thinks he can get away with picking Ridge and isolating the republican base... Obama can't afford that but with the state of the country and the way we are leaning Mccain may be able to.

Chris I agree somewhat
but Virginia doesn't move that much with Kaine and as I have said before, if Mccain feels like he has coverage to pick Ridge (which with a weaker unknown mixed review candidate like Kaine which Obama has seen his base dems curl up in fear at)...2 vets on a ticket in a normally "redleaning" heavily military state like Virginia would eliminate any small lift obama gets from Kaine... and McCain woul;d then probablty take PA and Ohio ...and NH ...and maybe Michigan.. and probably Florida.

Chadibuins is correct. I think Mich. is unlikely to go Republican. It's been consistently Democratic for several elections going back 20 years, at least. The Fix doesn't take into account the animosity towards the Republicans. In Ann Arbor, for example, city council used to have several Republicans, but they were all either voted out or changed party because no one would vote for them, out of anger towards nat'l Republicans. Granted, Ann Arbor is one of the most liberal portions of the state, but it's also not that small anymore, and it's a shoo-in that this anger is shared by others in less visible and obvious places in the state.

One person who hasn't been mentioned who would make a very good VP for either side, would be Colin Powell.....unless, of course,he would take the spotlight off of Mr. O'Bama......if the candidates really cared,they would pick a VP who would be good for the country, and not just good for their own self-ego's.

lenstewart, I agree. Romney's Lt. Gov lost the gubernatorial election by a huge margin in 2006, proof that Massachusetts voters don't like Romney. I don't see why NH voters would feel any differently. Especially since Romney lost the NH primary to McCain.

However--I don't think this still quite tels the story as Red states are more likely to turn Blue, than Blue to turn Red.
So to me the ranking represents which states McCain is likely to hold onto and Obama more likely to change. If McCain manages to hold Obama off in OH and maybe CO--he'll be lucky--I don't think he can even DREAM of turning PA or MI his way--to quote Dana Carvey as Bush-41 "Naht, gon do it."

Disagree on NH. I don't think Mitt is all that popular in NH. NH voters have had plenty of exposure to Romney when he was governor, and I don't think they liked what they saw too much. My general theory about Romney is that anyone who's been exposed to him for more than 3 weeks can't stand him. He certainly would not have won re-election in MA had he been foolish enough to run.

I think the better polls will be after the first presidential debate.I got up this morning and watched Morning Joe and now I remember why I do not watch him, he should be on Fox with Bill-o. Connie from Indiana

Look for polling in the next few weeks to show that a few of the above battleground states have moved solidly to the democratic column (PA and possibly Florida) and new ones, North Carolina, Georgia and Missouri to come into play. It is early for head-to-head match-ups in hypothetical polls to have any real grounding, but after the Olympic Games are finished, the movement should begin.

Ohioans are ready for a debate on national issues: responsible energy production & use, good stewardship of financial resources and oversight by agencies tasked with our countries long term objectives in mind. The days of borrowing to support both our personal lifestyles, as well as the bloated federal government are in the past. The future will become more local.